722.2315/905
The Minister in Ecuador (Gonzalez) to the Secretary of State
[Received January 14.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my despatch No. 203 of December 3, 1935,2 reporting that Peru had requested Ecuador to agree to submit to the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague the dispute relative to the Zarumilla district, and that the Ecuadorean Government had decided to decline the invitation. I have now received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ecuador2a a copy of the note addressed to the Government of Peru on this subject and I enclose herewith a copy with a suggested English translation.2
The Department will observe that Ecuador rejects the argument advanced by Peru that the Zarumilla dispute is a possessory question. The Minister for Foreign Affairs asserts that it is simply a question of whether or not the Zarumilla River, recognized by both Republics as the provisional de facto boundary, has abandoned its natural bed, and denies that any change could have taken place which would affect the status quo.
He adds that the Zarumilla dispute is but a partial and incidental question to the boundary litigation; that an obligatory procedure is already in force which must eventually result in the arbitration of the question by the President of the United States; and that therefore, it is not susceptible for decision by the Permanent Court of International Justice.
In view of the foregoing considerations he declines the invitation of Peru. However, he counteracts with an invitation that both Governments jointly request the President of the United States to appoint a commission of three American experts. This commission would determine the existence or non-existence of an old bed of the Zarumilla River and in the event of an affirmative decision, would fix the approximate period when the river abandoned its old bed. Qualification is made that the decision will not prejudice the rights or territorial aspirations of either country.
[Page 107]In addition, the Foreign Minister suggests that a modus vivendi be concluded immediately to remove the existing animated tension and to prevent any disturbance of the cordial and serene atmosphere which is essential for the negotiation and solution of the principal controversy.
I have been unable to ascertain what action Peru will take with respect to the suggestions made by Ecuador. However, in a conversation yesterday evening with the Secretary of the Peruvian Legation in which this subject was discussed, he made a very strong assertion which appears to reflect to some degree the attitude of his Government with respect to the general boundary question. He stated that Peru has on its side both right and possession in the matter of the territory in dispute and that, therefore, it could never consent to submitting the controversy to other than de jure arbitration.
Respectfully yours,